ISPs Finally Abandon The Copyright Alert System (engadget.com)

"Major internet providers are ending a four-year-old system in which consumers received 'copyright alerts' when they viewed peer-to-peer pirated content," reports Variety. An anonymous reader quotes Engadget's update on the Copyright Alert System. It was supposed to spook pirates by having their internet providers send violation notices, with the threat of penalties like throttling. However, it hasn't exactly panned out. ISPs and media groups have dropped the alert system with an admission that it isn't up to the job. While the program was supposedly successful in "educating" the public on legal music and video options, the MPAA states that it just couldn't handle the "hard-core repeat infringer problem" -- there wasn't much to deter bootleggers. The organizations, which include the RIAA, haven't devised an alternative.
"Surprise: it's hard to stop copyright violators just by asking them," reads their article's tagline, which attributes the failure of the system to naive optimism. "It assumed that most pirates didn't even realize they were violating copyright, and just needed to be shown the error of their ways."

Comments

error in whose ways?

[KiloByte]

"It assumed that most pirates didn't even realize they were violating copyright, and just needed to be shown the error of their ways."

Right. So those Jews who tried to avoid concentration camps were merely misguided and should be told their race is so inferior they should welcome extermination? Arguing that an unjust law is not unjust is not that easy when it's you, personally, who paid for its enactment.

We should not dismiss the harm of copyright. It grieviously damages culture -- not just receiving culture as in "freeloading" watchers of a random crap movie, but also creating more works. It's impossible to create a cultural work without building atop of references and conventions built up previously -- it would be totally incomprehensible to any reader. Because of copyright, direct references to any semi-modern works are outright banned, and less direct ones are not banned yet only because the copyright cartel didn't yet bribe^W"campaign donate" appropriate legislation.

Culture is what puts us apart from animals (in the common sense of the word) -- as biologically we are animals with most of the same urge. It's transmission of works that makes humanity. Thus, a crime that hampers this transmission is a crime against humanity itself.

(You might call my stance "extreme", starting with self-Godwining at the start. Don't let the propaganda that "piracy is evil" cloud you.)

Re:error in whose ways?

[KiloByte]

So, are you volunteering to work for free in return?

You mean, like Debian Developer work and upstream work on a bunch of projects? I believe I got my fair share of unpaid work covered.

Are you fine with clients just tossing your invoice for whatever you do for a living?

A non-advance invoice is a debt; it has been agreed upon beforehand (even if just verbally).

As for works of music/literature/etc, they worked fine -- better -- before the Worshipful Company of Stationers were granted copyright monopoly to limit who can own a printing press. Artists were paid generously, they just didn't get a monopoly afterwards. Grateful patrons paid them to ensure more good work is coming, as an incentive. A monopoly 75/95 years after death isn't exactly going to incentivize that artists to create more works, as he's, you know, dead.

Let's see music I listen to. I don't enjoy any drivel by MPAA/RIAA or their "artists", I listen mostly to symphonic black metal which is a niche genre (I also do +/-1 for every component, so symphonic is on my table too -- but the last time I checked, Mozart and Beethoven were long dead). Even there, musicians get only a small fraction of money for record sales, the portion is far better for concerts and merch such as shirts. Thus, I get the music exclusively via torrents, then patronize the artists some other way. Heck, I've even once put some money in a snail-mail anonymous envelope (many years ago, there are better ways now). I feel I've been skimping lately and should benefit them more, but you still can't accuse me of being a freeloader.

And, a disbanded band doesn't concert/etc anymore, so no incentive is misplaced, while I still enjoy their past work. It's just that to get my money you need to keep doing your part.

Re:error in whose ways?

[KiloByte]

There's major difference of being volunteering and being forced too.

Most of recipients are naturally freeloaders, and that's expected. When a merchant in medieval Genoa or a partician in ancient Rome sponsored a work of art, the plebs got to see it for free. In ancient Greece, there were even special funds so the poor can be exposed to culture. Some goods are scarce, and those are naturally limited -- during a famine, I wouldn't share my last bread no matter how loud the preachers speak -- but most artwork doesn't get used up just because some enjoy it for free. That statue on the Forum doesn't go away just because that uncultured pleb dared to raise his gaze upon it. Denying people access to an infinitely copyable good -- that's a special kind of evil.

Economics say, if the marginal price of a good is zero, the fair price is zero as well.

Obviously, such goods don't get created for free. Those with a disposable income get to decide what gets created. So instead of enriching the mafia that steals from the artists, go and patronize them directly. As middle-classers, we can decide what culture gets created instead of waiting for a 1-percenter to "trickle down" on us. It's culture that's worth fighting for, those private jets I can do without (even if I wouldn't mind owning one).

For tangible goods, you should get to keep what your produce. But for goods that can be replicated at no cost, why would you care that someone else gets for free what you paid for? You don't get any less of it -- so both you get to keep your piece, and Billy Bob gets a copy.

Quoting MAFIAA's words: "would you download a car?". If I have access to a reliable enough 3D printer, the hell I would! And I don't give a rat's ass about the car makers cartel's lost profits.

Movies.

[ledow]

Was looking for a film to watch last night.

(Bear in mind that I pay for everything legitimately. I don't own any music. I buy DVD's or LICENCED online content for everything I watch.

I do this so that I'm rewarding the creators of things I like. I've bought shareware. I've paid for donationware. I've bought some things several times over and bought them for friends.

The point is - I'm one of those rare people who pays for EVERYTHING I use. The vast majority of people I speak to are quite happy not to pay if there's no chance of being caught and will happily use Kodi or downloads or streams or tolerate what their child does, etc.)

I went on Amazon Prime. I didn't fancy anything on the Prime offerings, so I flicked through the "Buy" listings for movies. As there was nothing on Prime, I also loaded up the Google Play Store for movies and did the same on there. I have bought 50% of my online movies on each service, and even rented a couple of times.

I looked through all the recommended, the newly released, etc. and went back as far as I could without hitting anything I liked the look of. Fair enough, personal taste. Then I went through all the cheap movies, all dross and most I'd never heard of. Then I went through categories of movies, Action or Sci-Fi is always a good bet.

About 20 pages in, and a lot of scrolling, on both services the only things that I had any interest in were old 80's action / sci-fi movies. Okay, not a problem. I own a lot of them on DVD, though, but I wanted to watch online. I'm not going to pay a fortune again.

But then the problem hits - once I found a category I was willing to buy from and didn't already own, the prices were a piss-take. GBP10 for a movie from the 80's that's had endless re-runs on TV. 25GBP for a TV series that's on constant loop on multiple TV channels, and that's just the first series. Sorry, but I'm not paying that for an Arnie movie from the 80's, Indiana Jones, James Bond or a series of Friends to flick through. And the stuff I already have on DVD? Same prices. No way am I paying that just to "have it online".

The irony was, I'd have happily laid down the 25GBP for a complete boxset of something, or 10GBP for a new movie, or a few GBP for one of the old dross (Indiana Jones, etc.). But I couldn't justify it to myself to pay those kinds of prices.

In the end, after about an hour of scrolling through both stores, I bought nothing. My entertainment time was gone, my funds weren't going to be spent like that, and that's with me LOOKING to buy.

The other annoying part? You can't buy certain things anywhere. I love an old TV series called The Good Life (Good Neighbours in the US). I have it on DVD. I'd quite like it online too, to watch when I'm out on holiday etc. I bought series 1 & 2 online and - despite being from the 70's - series 3 is nowhere to be seen. Literally, nothing. I've been checking almost every month for years now.

Try and get Aliens:Special Edition. Half the online streaming stores just don't carry it at all, or don't mention if it is SE or not.

And then there are the TV series from years ago that still have never made it to DVD or online at all. The most annoying ones are like above - someone converted one series and then said fuck it and left it at that.

I have no surprise at all when I find out that people pirate or stream or whatever. They just want to watch the fucking movie that they like. But you can't. And even when you can, the price is ludicrous.

Because I won't pirate, this gives me one option. Stop watching. Even the old stuff. Stop buying.

The movie and TV industries are killing themselves. I have no sympathy for them.

Also, we TOLD THEM THIS several decades ago when they started on the pointless crusade against piracy. If they'd listened then, maybe they wouldn't have wasted money on stupid DRM schemes, they'd have not lost public favour, and they might have been able to try things like streaming, downloads,

You will never get the money of the freeloaders

[gweihir]

They will simply do without your content if you manage to stop them. They will never, ever pay for it. And, surprise!, it is actually much worse for you to have them not watch your stuff at all than to have them watch it for free. But it takes some minimal understanding of how a market works and how word-of-mouth works. You do not have that.

One exception: All the really, really bad "AAA" stuff would profit from people not downloading it early, because then people would go to cinemas unaware how their time will get wasted and their money essentially stolen. But since that morally amounts to fraud on your side, I cannot find it in me to see that any injustice is done to you there.

Re: unpaid

[ewibble]

People should pay for work, work but historically end results are a good way of judging work, In your example of a fancy chair you judge the quality and quantity of work required to make the chair. Allowing other people to make the chair gives you a comparison and forces continual improvements in either cost or quality. If someone can make the chair better or cheaper than the original creator they should, that is what is best for society.

The problem with patents and copyright is you basically stop other people from making a chair because somebody came up with it first. So they can charge an unfair price up until the point people will just sit on the floor, there is no incentive to improve your product or make production more efficient. If you need any evidence of that look at car keys, to get one cut if it has an immobilizer in it, cost at the lower end $400, You can get an entire new alarm system for less than that, but because the hold a monopoly they can charge, not what they want because you will simply get a new car, or walk but a vastly unfair price.

For movies and electronic devices this is bad, but things like medicine this is down right mass murder, you are basically giving the customer an ultimatum give me all your money or die, oh by the way no guarantees you will live. I understand that it requires money but giving someone the power of life and death over someone in a bargaining situation is not going to end up with a fair deal. What you need to do is say Ok you can have a monopoly for a limited time but you have to prove you are not overcharging, and if it is discovered that you are using creative account practices to over inflate expenses, you will be charge with the crime you are actually guilty of which is mass murder.